AAAS – “science is not enough”

WUWT readers may be interested to see what the AAAS is doing with members’ funding. I’m amused that they baldly admit that they want to “influence public perceptions and debate when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument.”

What is being said here with “Science Is Not Enough” is:

“If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”

The full text of the email I received is below. Sad, simply sad.

Note the twitter hashtag if you want to participate in the online discussion.

Why do so many political leaders and citizens remain unconcerned about climate change, water scarcity, fisheries depletion, and a host of other science-related global challenges? Find out by joining us for a Webcast of the plenary panel Science Is Not Enough, featuring three of the world’s most knowledgeable and compelling science communicators during the 2012 AAAS Annual Meeting.

This exceptional Webcast—set for 5:00—6:30 p.m. PT on Saturday, February 18—will arm scientists, educators, students, and citizens around the world with messages to help influence public perceptions and debate when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument.

James Hansen, whose testimony before Congressional committees in the 1980s helped raise broad awareness of the global climate change issue. Dr. Hansen is recognized for speaking truth to powerful entities, for identifying ineffectual policies as “greenwash,” and for outlining the actions that the public must take to protect the future of young people and other species on the planet. He is currently the Director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.

Olivia Judson, who explores the intersection of science and society, focusing on such controversial issues as the actuarial use of DNA and the potential to grow human organs. Dr. Judson has presented science issues on television many times, most recently when she appeared in an episode of PBS’s “Nova” about DNA connections to evolution. She has written a weekly blog on evolutionary biology for the New York Times website, called “The Wild Side.” She is currently a Research Fellow at Imperial College in London.

Hans Rosling, co-founder of the Gapminder Foundation, which developed the Trendalyzer software for converting international statistics into moving, interactive, and enjoyable graphics. Dr. Rosling promotes a fact-based world view through increased use and understanding of freely accessible public statistics. He presented the television documentary “The Joy of Stats,” which was broadcast in the United Kingdom in 2010. He is currently Professor of International Health at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden.

AAAS President Nina Fedoroff will introduce the speakers, and the session will be moderated by Emmy-award winning journalist Frank Sesno, former CNN Washington bureau chief, who is currently Professor and Director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University.

Again, the session will begin at 5:00 p.m., PT on Saturday, February 18. Click here to watch what should be one of the most informative yet entertaining Saturday evenings you have had in a while! Be sure to submit your questions via Twitter by using the hashtag #AAASMtg.

“Why do so many political leaders and citizens remain unconcerned about climate change”

———————————- MAYBE?

Requiring accountability and transparency of science – ARE the “rules of engagement of science”.
Requiring correlation and causation observational ( repeatable ) empirical evidence for a hypothesis – ARE the “rules of engagement of science”.

30 plus years and hundreds of millions of dollars later…………..we still wait for the above.

I’m not sure what the problem is. The ancients knew that truth alone will not carry the day if it is not winningly presented, thus the art of rhetoric. Why would we assume that the truths of science would not be in need of some adornment in order to move the minds of men? Is WUWT completely devoid of rhetorical flourish? Should it be?

I believe the point of the conference title is that the science is there, and has been for decades, but it is not getting through to the public.
The “Science” of supporting anthopogentic climate change is overwhelming, but because of the extensive campaign of denial and misinformation, “the science” just isn’t enough. This conference is about messaging – how to “cut through” the incredible amount of mis-information that is being conveyed by motivated and well funded groups with the sole purpose of creating doubt about well-established science.

This is Thomas L. Friedman’s economic pitch “The Earth is Flat” (NYTimes). Not sure how realistic his view is even from a strictly economic point of view? I guess the AAAS wants to jump into the latest trendy mode and just forget about the science (and maybe forget about basic common sense too?)

When I come up against a situation contaminated by reality and scientifically gathered data and information, I check the new facts and reality. If I am proven wrong by newly presented info and photgraphic and video images which i can see are not doctored, I pause. If upon a second review of the new material, if i am proven wrong, I say,”Oops.” then do my damnedest to correct my arrogance and ignorance which led to my self-embarassment. A pet cat helps. They never get involved in controversy. Science is enough.

If “the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument”, then that’s a clue that the question is unresolved. And when the question is unresolved, trying to win the argument is hubris of the first order … but since James Hansen is the lead speaker, what else would we have expected? He’s the king of “If I don’t have the facts I just bring out the fear … be vewwy, vewwy afraid” school of post-normal science.

LarryL says:
February 17, 2012 at 12:20 pm
I believe the point of the conference title is that the science is there, and has been for decades, but it is not getting through to the public.
The “Science” of supporting anthopogentic climate change is overwhelming, but because of the extensive campaign of denial and misinformation, “the science” just isn’t enough. This conference is about messaging – how to “cut through” the incredible amount of mis-information that is being conveyed by motivated and well funded groups with the sole purpose of creating doubt about well-established science.

Larry, I wonder why they have to release fake documents and try to conceal real documents if the science is so sound?

Also, please educate us about the campaign of denial and misinformation. Give examples. Who is behind it? How much money? Please give concrete examples of the misinformation.

The biggest question I have is where do I sign up for that money? Is there a shadow internet out there?

Send them donations in order they have the where with all to buy enough mirrors to cover the walls at this meeting. Then maybe seeing themselves in such lager numbers they will not be so intimatated and too, it might reduce the paironoid condition they have developed of late.

“I believe the point of the conference title is that the science is there, and has been for decades, but it is not getting through to the public.
The “Science” of supporting anthopogentic climate change is overwhelming, but because of the extensive campaign of denial and misinformation, “the science” just isn’t enough. This conference is about messaging…”

I rather think that that’s Anthony’s point. There is a huge difference between a scientific body and a political body. Politics is all about messaging and rhetorical persuasion – acceptably so. So is advertising. Anthony is pointing out that the AAAS has accepted that it has crossed the line from scientific to political.

A pure scientist simply provides data, hypotheses and interpretation. Darwin did not see it as his job to fight for the acceptance of Evolution Theory by the politicians and religious leaders of his day. Other people might well do this, or fight for its rejection, if they can see benefit in the process, but then they are NOT doing science – they are doing lobbying or religion.

What you are implying is that it is acceptable for a scientific body to determine, using its best endeavours, what it believes to be true. And then, if people do not believe this, to use the techniques of politicians and advertising groups to change their minds. Can’t you see what is deeply worrying about that?

“Why do so many political leaders and citizens remain unconcerned about climate change, water scarcity, fisheries depletion, and a host of other science-related global challenges?”

Water scarcity? We have water boards, water commissions, etc in the states plus international commissions with Canada.

Fisheries depletion? We have DNR or DNQ’s in every state or forestry management that stocks bodies of water. And the Feds have several departments that have some say on the oceanic fisheries within coastal waters. In addition there are international treaties on some fishing and whaling.

What they really are after is the “global challenges”. Some people just don’t feel fulfilled unless the problem is “global”. Maslow’s hierarchy at work.

“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”

Why would that be something to be recognized for? Is their world view that powerful entities don’t like truth? What about speaking truth to non-powerful entities? Is that just a little truth or the whole truth that he’s been speaking?

“Be sure to submit your questions”

Like: Why was the 1988 “projection” so far off?
How about: Since the actual temperature followed the “draconian CO2 emission reductions” projection even though the emissions followed the “business as usual” projection, isn’t that evidence that the effect of CO2 on warming is negligible?
Or maybe: If you’re willing to break the law for “the cause”, why should anyone believe you wouldn’t fudge data for “the cause”?

The compulsive need to place all human activity under the control of an elite central power is the main difference Fascism and Science. Long ago, Science was about the use of the “Scientific Method” to explain and define natural phenomena. Controlling the world was not a part of Science.

Why do so many political leaders and citizens remain unconcerned about climate change…
========
The climate ain’t changing….we’re tired of all this doom and gloom crap…..and we all have bigger problems to fix

“Why do so many political leaders and citizens remain unconcerned about climate change, water scarcity, fisheries depletion, and a host of other science-related global challenges? ”

Well, as far as us “citizens” are concerned, the reason we are unconcerned about climate change is that we are more concerned about our jobs, our lives, our kids, and our futures. People like Hansen are instead bent on destroying the jobs (and lives) of average people working industries they don’t like (like the oil and gas industries).

What we the citizens should ask is…why is it that these clowns pass judgment upon the “citizens” while pulling down very generous six figure government/academic salaries + benefits? They simply DO NOT CARE about ordinary people and their lives. They live in fantasy worlds.

New study shows no evidence of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing
VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Hydraulic fracturing of shale formations to extract natural gas has no direct connection to reports of groundwater contamination, based on evidence reviewed in a study released Thursday by the Energy Institute at The University of Texas at Austin.
The study, released at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Vancouver, British Columbia, found that many problems ascribed to hydraulic fracturing are related to processes common to all oil and gas drilling operations, such as casing failures or poor cement jobs.
University researchers also concluded that many reports of contamination can be traced to above-ground spills or other mishandling of wastewater produced from shale gas drilling, rather than from hydraulic fracturing per se, said Charles “Chip” Groat, an Energy Institute associate director who led the project.
“These problems are not unique to hydraulic fracturing,” he said.

Larry make up your own mind.
There is NO trend, there is no warming from NASA itself, Currently temperatures are at -0.09C so don’t blame the wild weather on global warming, there is no global warming etc….

I believe the point of the conference title is that the science is there, and has been for decades, but it is not getting through to the public. …

Larry,

Any statement that begins “I believe …” is a statement of faith, not science.

As regards the “overwhelming” nature of the “science” supporting AGW, that science consists of a laboratory experiment over 100 years old – the sole truly empirical element in the AGW view – and a vast number of physics principles that individually are known to be very useful, which have been employed in one manner or another in computer models. When you examine the debate what you find is that “experts” disagree on the implications, the implementations and the interactions of those physical principles in the computer models. This in itself is more underwhelming than overwhelming; not even experts agree on the manner in which known, useful physical principles interact in nature.

When you contrast model output with the data from historical geology and glaciology, the catastrophic forecasts of Hansen et al. are not just thrown into question, they are disproven. Atmospheric CO2 has been many times higher in concentration than the purported catastrophe-inducing levels bruited about by Hansen et al. The preconditions of purported environmental catastrophe that appear in the models have in fact dominated the geological history of the real world for the majority of the last half-billion years. In short, since we are not now living in a run-away greenhouse environment, it cannot happen. Things simply cannot happen in the manner the models indicate or the catastrophes forecast in the models would already be here and would have been here for 100s of millions of years, thus the models are wrong.

Presumably all the correct physical processes are there in the models, but the interactions between them are clearly wrongly modeled. If they were not, the human race would not exist.

LarryL says:“The “Science” of supporting anthopogentic climate change is overwhelming, but because of the extensive campaign of denial and misinformation, “the science” just isn’t enough. “

So, you’re saying that given enough money I could convince half the population that the earth is flat or the moon is made of cheese while 100+ times more is being spent to convince them I’m wrong?

“This conference is about messaging – how to “cut through” the incredible amount of mis-information that is being conveyed by motivated and well funded groups with the sole purpose of creating doubt about well-established science.”

Can you name one such group that is funded on par with WWF?

Stop drinking the kool-aid. Evidence of global warming is not evidence of anthropogenic climate change. Sporadic correlation is certainly not causation. Look at the entire climatic history, not just the blink of an eye (relatively speaking) they show you. Don’t just consider what they tell you, consider what they don’t; I can make a list of facts to support banning water that doesn’t make it sensible. Notice how they’re always citing potentials (“could”, “may”, large ranges for numerical values) instead of absolutes. Settled science is stated in terms that are absolute: earth is round, moon is not made of cheese, carbon dioxide is a GHG not climate sensitivity is between 1.4 and 5.0 or climate change may cause this or that or my absolute favorite “is consistent with”. A light in the sky “is consistent with” an alien invasion, doesn’t make it so. These are the signs of making a mountain out of a mole hill.

“This conference is about messaging – how to “cut through” the incredible amount of mis-information that is being conveyed by motivated and well funded groups with the sole purpose of creating doubt about well-established science.”

Oh, Larry, give it a rest with the “well funded groups”. As the fallout from the recent Heartland story has demonstrated, the alarmists have been massively funded by taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of millions. Must be billions by now. I contrast Anthony did his surface stations research with no pay and the help of volunteers.

“Why would we assume that the truths of science would not be in need of some adornment in order to move the minds of men?”

That sounds suspiciously like Stephen Schneider.

Also sound very sexist ;-)

What J says is undoubtedly true; that’s what the Union of Concerned Scientists, Heartland and various other political advocacy groups are for. I find it sad that AAAS and The Royal Society forget the purpose for which they were formed: scientific advancement.

Craig says February 17, 2012 at 1:11 pm: “I don’t see this language on the AAAS website anywhere. Did the change it?”

That’s very odd. You must be on the wrong web site.

Go to http://www.aaas.org. In the upper left is a search box. Enter the phrase “influence public perceptions and debate” (in fact you can copy and paste it from this very sentence) and click on the red magnifying glass.

You will then get a page of 20 hits, the first three of which contain the exact and precise bolded phrase “influence public perceptions and debate.”

There is a great difference between science and politics. Science is about understanding. Politics is about stories and persuasion. The AAAS has crossed the line from science to politics.

The Scientists’ job is to provide data, hypotheses and interpretations thereof. It is not their job to fight for the acceptance of the data. hypotheses and their interpretation. Other people can do this, or fight for their rejection, The latter is not science – it is lobbying or religion.

All over the World from AAAS to the Royal Society, Science organisations have been crossing the line into the World of Politics. It may be because they find more money there.

There is a currency in Latin America which has the following phrase on it: BY REASON OR BY FORCE< Pretty cool, isn´t it?
As there are not scientific arguments/ formulas/ laws or whatever to back “Climate Change”…and because climate has the bad custom of changing all the time, then, AAAS motto should read:IF NOT BY SCIENCE, THEN BY FORCE, YOU WILL BE OBLIGE TO ACCEPT IT

Again this all comes back to ‘sustainability’. Which is attempting to unite under cover of enviro-health. The folks mentioned above come back to ‘social biology’ and the many forms of the phrasing, going back toward ‘evolutionary biology’. Rosling has concentrated upon “Rosling’s research has also focused on other links between economic development, agriculture, poverty and health[5] in Africa, Asia and Latin America” – Wiki of course. He was a “health adviser” to WHO and UNICEF, need there be more connections? What was it Edenhoffer said about redistribution and climate policy…

Though this sounds like nutjob territory, every single issue comes down to control which will become population control. I must have lost several good links but suffice to say that AAAS has absorbed the scientocracy of the eugenics and Malthusian crowd…back in the 1960s if I remember correctly. Remember the incestous relationship between AAAS and NAS (National Academy of Science). It is truly astonishing the amount of organizations of activist foundations and businesses worldwide.

I don’t like caveats but here it is anyway. I do believe some folks truly believe in helping stop CAGW or whatever phrase, as well as other ‘harms’, real or imagined. I don’t believe in absolutes in regards to people; but if the sheep will follow a shepherd, then a shepherd will arise. Good thing we are not all sheep.

You should warn people before posting stuff like this. I nearly died from an apoplectic fit of intense laughter when I unsuspectingly stumbled across the phrase “young people and other species”. I was caught completely off guard, just wasn’t ready for it. Not fair to just hit someone with that without warning. Well, now that I am over the sudden shock and have had a chance to reflect upon the phrase with a degree of detachment, I suppose that it might have merit. I mean, it is a fresh point of view. I see that Joe Prins also alerted to the phrase but with a much more constructive response. I accept his revision but cannot rid myself of the catalog of ideas suggested by the original construction.

You can be sure they will not talk about these:
1…CO2 at 390ppm is better than 310 seventy years ago.
Because crops grow some 40-50 percent faster.
Old growth forests, even, are restarting.
2…Higher world wide temperatures help.
Because a longer growing season across the whole of
Canada is beneficial.

On the edge of the UK to pound coin it reads “Standing on the shoulders of giants.” attributed to Newton.
Looking at this bunch of scientists, in the future it will be reading “sat in the pockets of dwarves!”

The Loony Tunes conference have come to the home of the loony tunes warmers. Vancouver BC, is a beautiful City, but god we have them by the bucket load. Desmog blog, David Suzuki, Green Peace started here. and to many other environmental wacko’s.

The catastrophic AGW by CO2 cult led by the uninspiring guru/activist James Hansen is now a self-castrated pseudo-scientific fringe movement. They appear to only have one argument left to push back against the independent thinker (aka skeptic) led tide of CAGW rejection. Their last ditch argument against independent thinkers is just the old silly one about us being ‘big fossil fuel’ agents for an evil anti-scientific conspiracy against Mother Gaia. It was always bad strategy.

So, dear Hansen and associated cult acolytes, I recommend you get on a path to discuss the concept of independent thinker as an objective epistemological source of climate science dialog/evaluation.

“Why do so many political leaders and citizens remain unconcerned about…” “…water scarcity…?”

Umm, cuz we live on the water planet?
=================================================
There #$%^$^@#@#$@ is no #%$%#%^$^$&%^&%! water #@^$&%@# shortage!!! Sorry, pet peeve.

Are water doesn’t go anywhere. You can’t use it up. It stays right here on this big blue marble. The same water we use for cooking and drinking gets reused for crops and irrigation it gets reused for habitat, and all sorts of neat stuff.

J says:——Why would we assume that the truths of science would not be in need of some adornment in order to move the minds of men?LarryL says:——-The “Science” of supporting anthopogentic climate change is overwhelming,JK—– Can either of you guys show us actual, real evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming?
(We all know that unusual weather is NOT evidence of its cause, melting ice is NOT evidence of its cause, drowning polar bears are not evidence of man’s CO2, CO2 FOLLOWS temperature in Al Gore;s ice cores, nature emits about 97% of the annual CO2 emissions, water vapor causes about twice as much greenhouse effect as CO2, correlation is NOT evidence of causation, and climate models are not evidence for a variety of reasons including the fact that they are considered crap by the top climate scientists in their emails. )

“That’s very odd. You must be on the wrong web site. Go to http://www.aaas.org. In the upper left is a search box. Enter the phrase “influence public perceptions and debate” (in fact you can copy and paste it from this very sentence) and click on the red magnifying glass. You will then get a page of 20 hits, the first three of which contain the exact and precise bolded phrase “influence public perceptions and debate. Easy, eh? ”

Yes, but you will not find “when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument” which is by far the most interesting part of the quote.

Reading what I actually wrote is almost as easy as putting it into the search box, eh?

Actually, it might be an interesting discussion. James Hansen might be more know as an alarmist, but he also realized that the only alternative to fossil fuel is nuclear. It would be interesting to hear if he would elaborate on the public’s negative preception about nuclear energy and the green movement permanent denials of science when it comes to nuclear safety.
Hans Rosling has amazing presentations (at http://www.ted.org) on population development (growth, wealth and health) that make it very clear, why we need energy for civilized life.

Conflating “climate change” with true environmental needs such as fisheries and watersheds has proven to be a disaster. The phony Warmists, alarmism has sucked the life out of true environmental remediation and preservation. Billions have been spent on worthless schemes and research.

If anyone is interested, I can personally attest that Nina Fedoroff has been steadfast in defending REAL SCIENCE and rational perspective in the area of genetic engineering/biotechnology. She is truly an ally to us– one who is rooted in reality.

The AAAS has been tacking left for decades, but Nina may represent a turning point. Reach out to her in rational terms and she’ll take this up with Hansen!!
I’ll send her a note.
:)

Bravo, Smokey, that’s it in a nutshell. The lies and exaggerations and dirty tricks come back to haunt them; it will be a lot tougher and more expensive now than it was 20 or even 10 years ago. Hopefully, in our lifetime we’ll see the worst of these charlatans face some kind of comeuppance.

What we the citizens should ask is…why is it that these clowns pass judgment upon the “citizens” while pulling down very generous six figure government/academic salaries + benefits? They simply DO NOT CARE about ordinary people and their lives. They live in fantasy worlds.

They have never cared about ordinary people and their lives, but they do not live in a fantasy world except to the extent perhaps we all do. The clowns have always aligned themselves with our political Lords and Masters for the very sound reason that is where the money & prestige lie.

History is our great teacher here. Ordinary people began to experience progress back in the Middle Ages about a thousand years ago when windmills and animal power began to replace slave labour. Food became more plentiful and for the first time humanity gained a Middle Class in Western Europe.

When the Medieval Climate Optimum had passed into the Little Ice Age, civilisation survived, despite the calamities of the plagues brought on by food shortages. Previouslt, civilisation had collapsed under the pressure of climatic decline. This is the European Miracle. New technologies and innovative economics enabled the pace of change to gradually increase resulting in what we see today: a Working Class with the same standard of living the Middle Class had 50 years ago.

The Middle Class is the engine driving the economic & technological miracle. Our political Lords and Masters are attempting to persuade the Middle Class to commit economic suicide, sadly with some considerable success so far. Pricing energy out of the reach of both the Working Class and the Middle Class can only benefit our political Lords and Masters. The Middle Class appear to be asleep at the wheel.

Why does science have to move the minds of men ?
The truth about CO2 and climate was there before there were any men and it will be there long after there are none left.
The job of science is to shine a light on it and attempt to expose the truth for study. The technologist will then use the knowledge to try to improve the lot of humanity, the the politican will try to move the minds of men when there is a decision to be made about which path to take.

Wasnt it very recently that travesty T was telling us to listen to the specialists?

WUWT readers may be interested to see what the AAAS is doing with members’ funding. I’m amused that they baldly admit that they want to “influence public perceptions and debate when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument.”

I always thought that quotation marks were meant to denote a quotation! This is NOT a quote from the press release that was mentioned above.

It is sad that Anthony baldly accepts the misquote and then goes on to hype Doug’s misquote as if it came AAAS, causing others (like Willis) to think this is indeed what AAAS said. A little fact-checking would have gone a long way.

The closest I can find on the AAAS site is a quote (for the event in question) that states “An exceptional plenary panel will arm scientists, educators, and students with finely worded messages to influence public perceptions and debate about science-related global challenges.” Note that the inflamatory part of the supposed quote (“when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument.”) is nowhere to be found.

So Anthony, what in the actual AAAS statement do you equate to AAAS saying “If you have neither on your side, pound the table.” this this is “what is being said here” according to you?

Ponder this for a moment. In reading the article and the associated comments, I have come to one conclusion!

Truth is what any individual or group of individuals can cause any other individual or group of individuals to ACCEPT as the truth. It doesn’t make a bit of difference if the TRUTH is based on Corrupted/Manipulated Data or of the proponents agenda. From Global Warming to the World being flat, the Moon Landing was faked, to nothing being able to live in the oceans depth because there is no sunlight or food source. Consider the source of the information as well as the means of gathering the information and make up your own mind!

The “Science” of supporting anthopogentic climate change is overwhelming, but because of the extensive campaign of denial and misinformation, “the science” just isn’t enough.

True enough, the mighty PR machines of governments and Green groups, and those groups that wish to be governments who cloak themselves in Green, were engaged to convince the public of the reality of CAGW, bringing on the full “science of convincing others” to bear, drowning us with their message in the media, even committing the forced indoctrination of the young children.

But cynicism is inherent in the human animal, as being wary is a survival trait. We continually seek fresh proof, as the food or water or shelter that was good for us yesterday might not be good today. Kids grow to realize the adults don’t always tell the truth nor have good explanations, and being told to accept something as true or they will be made a failure induces rebellion. Thus a one-time “proving” of CAGW would not be enough, we human animals would require frequent re-affirmation.

What did we get? An extensive campaign of denial and misinformation. Just about everything got blamed on global warming. Extreme weather got blamed on global warming, even when our elders and our historical writings revealed there was the same and worse previously. When we got colder winters and cooler summers, as we’ve had before, the global warming mantra didn’t hold. We noticed the flow of money from our wallets to fight a problem we couldn’t see. We were told it was to avert catastrophes in the future, when most people can’t be bothered to actively save for their own future retirement, while blaming catastrophes in the now on global warming. “So paying out all this dough won’t make the disasters stop happening, they’ll keep coming and may get worse, but sometime decades to centuries from now they’ll be no worse than they are now, except sometimes they might be worse like they are now?”

Even the attempted name shift to “climate change” didn’t take hold, as everyone knew it meant global warming so they continued to call it that, as seen in the popular media everywhere.

In the end, “the science” succumbed to its own denial and misinformation campaign, and per human nature “global warming” became a cynical joke. “Why did (the dog get sick, the tire go flat, the computer crash, the fill-in-the-blank)?” Must be global warming!

Well personally I am terrified. What with the temperature going up by 0.8 of a degree in 150 years and sea level changing by between -3mm and +3mm a year. I am seriously concerned that it will be another 0.1 of a degree higher by the time I die and the sea will be up to 7 cm deeper or shallower. I may die of heatstroke or drowning before my time. No need to convince me AAAS. I am out in the morning to buy a life jacket and a parasol.
Happily, I am not concerned about the rising prices of commodities against the value of my pension, or the increased price of electricity for my home, or the rising price of fuel for my car, or the long delays in the availability of medical treatment in the UK, or the fact that my daughter cannot get a job, or the apparently increasing lawlessness in our society, or the poor standard of modern education, or the lack of morality in the press etc etc. No its all about the global warming for me!

Craig says: February 17, 2012 at 1:11 pm
“influence public perceptions and debate when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument.” I don’t see this language on the AAAS website anywhere. Did the change it?

The quote is from the email that was sent to Anthony – it’s in plain sight in the main item above.

The potential loss of huge pots ‘research’ funding is making them become very desperate. Sceptics, with lower budgets than alarmists, are slapping them upside their heads and revealing the facts of their great scam to the world.

Pluck says (February 17, 2012 at 1:51 pm)
“young people and other species”

Lol.

There’s a story about Bertrand Russell when he was trying to convince a British audience of the perils of nuclear war. “We’ll all be killed” said Russell, “and our cities and our science and all our great works of art will be destroyed!”. The audience yawned and fidgeted silently. “And dogs and cats!” yelled Russell desperately. “They’ll be killed as well!”. The audience gasped in horror.

Back under the last government, the Department of Energy and Climate Change produced a TV advertisment (more taxpayers money going to the alarmist cause!) showing a cartoon flooded city of the future. There were many complaints, mainly because it showed a dog desperately trying not to drown.

So, if you want to “influence public perceptions” then what you need to do is concentrate on the danger to poor creatures with lesser brains than we humans. Dogs, cats, hamsters, polar bears, teenagers…

Bernie McCune said (February 17, 2012 at 12:21 pm): This is Thomas L. Friedman’s economic pitch “The Earth is Flat” (NYTimes). Not sure how realistic his view is even from a strictly economic point of view?

It is not realistic; his “Earth is Flat” metaphor lacks logic, sense, and intelligibility. “Flat economics” is nothing like what Friedan ptiches; see Leamer’s review of Friedman at http://uclaforecast.com/reviews/Leamer_FlatWorld_060221.pdf,
where the real significane of a “flat Earth” to economics is described and why “flatness” is even a topic to consider. Friedman is found wanting.

Billy97 says:
February 17, 2012 at 1:01 pm
…………..Long ago, Science was about the use of the “Scientific Method” to explain and define natural phenomena. Controlling the world was not a part of Science.

Money corrupts, and lots of funding money corrupts absolutely,
or
influence corrupts, and lots of influence corrupts absolutely,
or a bit of both. But corrupted they are.

Really? How much has he suffered for it then? I would suggest that his entire career is built on not saying the wrong things to those in power.

He professes to know that we should use nuclear to replace the problems with fossil fuels. But does he make that the target of his actions – taking on the anti-Nuclear greens, to the point of getting arrested? Or does he go after the soft targets, like coal, that are already on the way down?

Tim Folkerts, the quote was from the email I received from AAAS, not the press release that Anthony helpfully added a link for. The entire email is shown below the ========== separator (minus the link that would give access to my own account at AAAS). The quote is verbatim, real, and sourced from AAAS. Due to a rather clunky post submission portal on WUWT, my editorializing above the separator is not clearly identified as mine. My apologies for any confusion.

“If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table,” is a well-known aphorism from the legal profession. It seemed an appropriate comment on the tactics displayed, and is not presented as a quote from AAAS.

“influence public perceptions and debate when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument” is a DIRECT QUOTE from the body of the email I received this morning.

Back under the last government, the Department of Energy and Climate Change produced a TV advertisment (more taxpayers money going to the alarmist cause!) showing a cartoon flooded city of the future. There were many complaints, mainly because it showed a dog desperately trying not to drown.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/21/asa_climate_probe/ASA to probe drowning dog climate ad
Think of the children
Excerpt:”The first tasteless ad features a girl watching a cartoon dog drown, engulfed by a flood – with the advice that only by reducing “everyday things like keeping houses warm and driving cars” can we avert a watery fate for our pets, our children’s pets, and our children’s pets’ children:”
(Vid link to “youtube-nocookie dot com” tells me “This video is private.”)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/24/ofcom_drowning_dog_probe/Ofcom probes TV climate porn
But too late to save Drowning Dog
Excerpt: “Ofcom received over 700 complaints, many of which argued it was political advertising. Even global warming advocates found it distasteful, while the Taxpayer Alliance doubted that the ad would ever have been broadcast if had been produced by an independent pressure group.”
(Vid link similar to first piece, Times Online, not working.)

The UK advertising industry has bravely decided it can continue to accept millions of pounds from the state to create alarming climate advertisements, despite inaccuracies and a storm of complaints from parents. The principled decision, from the admen’s self-regulatory body the ASA, follows 939 complaints about the UK energy ministry DECC’s “Drowning Dog” prime time TV and cinema ad (aka “Bedtime Story”) , which cost £6m, and four related posters.

After all, “the science” as presented was flawless:

Surprisingly the ASA even supported the ad’s claim that 40 per cent of CO2 in the atmosphere came from humans doing “ordinary every day things”. In fact, human CO2 emissions are a much smaller proportion (3.5 per cent) of total CO2 emissions. Here’s how the ASA squared the circle:

Because the claim “over 40% of the C02 was coming from ordinary every day things like keeping houses warm and driving cars” was preceded by those qualifications and was accompanied by images of human activity in a typical UK town, such as cars driving along streets and lighting in houses, we considered it would be clear to most viewers that the ad was discussing increasing levels of C02 and that the claim “over 40% of the C02 was coming from ordinary every day things like keeping houses warm and driving cars” referred not to total C02 in the global atmosphere, but to C02 produced by human activities in the UK.

(Time to hit “Post” and see if the spam filter eats it for use of “dirty words”…)

How bold they are, so trusting of the infrastructure of misinformation at their disposal, that they feel safe in making such statements, knowing that any voices raised against them make no more noise against their clatter than the footfall of a mouse.

Those who would enslave men have never lacked cadres of willing dupes to turn the cell door key.

If “the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument”, then that’s a clue that the question is unresolved.

By that standard, one would be forced to conclude, for example, that a lot of questions are unresolved that I would be surprised to hear you admit are unresolved. Do you believe that the basic questions regarding the origin of species addressed by evolution are unresolved. Do you believe the question of whether the Earth is 6000 years old or more like 4.6 billion years old is unresolved?

The actual empirical evidence shows that “the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument” when that science goes against strongly held beliefs, be they religious beliefs, ideological beliefs, or beliefs based on financial interests. It has very little to do with how compelling the scientific evidence is.

Surprisingly the ASA even supported the ad’s claim that 40 per cent of CO2 in the atmosphere came from humans doing “ordinary every day things”. In fact, human CO2 emissions are a much smaller proportion (3.5 per cent) of total CO2 emissions. Here’s how the ASA squared the circle:

Because the claim “over 40% of the C02 was coming from ordinary every day things like keeping houses warm and driving cars” was preceded by those qualifications and was accompanied by images of human activity in a typical UK town, such as cars driving along streets and lighting in houses, we considered it would be clear to most viewers that the ad was discussing increasing levels of C02 and that the claim “over 40% of the C02 was coming from ordinary every day things like keeping houses warm and driving cars” referred not to total C02 in the global atmosphere, but to C02 produced by human activities in the UK.

According to AR4 “everyday things” like residential and commercial buildings and transport account for 21% of emissions. WUWT?

If “the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument”, then that’s a clue that the question is unresolved.

By that standard, one would be forced to conclude, for example, that a lot of questions are unresolved that I would be surprised to hear you admit are unresolved. Do you believe that the basic questions regarding the origin of species addressed by evolution are unresolved. Do you believe the question of whether the Earth is 6000 years old or more like 4.6 billion years old is unresolved?

Whilst I think the Earth is in the region of 4.6 billion years old, I cannot categorically say it is.

The actual empirical evidence shows that “the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument” when that science goes against strongly held beliefs, be they religious beliefs, ideological beliefs, or beliefs based on financial interests. It has very little to do with how compelling the scientific evidence is.

1) Empirical evidence? Yes I noticed warming, I’m NOT stupid! Before that I noticed cooling and YES I know about your Aerosols!

2) There is NO scientific evidence!

3) As for religious or ideological beliefs, I suggest you read, Atheism as religion!

What is the saying?

Oh yes… I remember. Those who believe in nothing will believe anything!

“The actual empirical evidence shows that ‘the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument’ when that science goes against strongly held beliefs, be they religious beliefs, ideological beliefs, or beliefs based on financial interests.”

• CAGW religious beliefs, check

• Ideological beliefs, check

• Beliefs based on financial interests …no. That one is not belief-based.

The third is self-serving motivation based on greed; lying for payola. Scientists feeding at the public trough have a major financial motivation to flog CAGW and demonize “carbon”. At least I can understand human nature, and how some scientists will falsely alarm the public for money, and political power.

But the rank-and-file alarmist crowd has a true religious belief system. They are true believers because “climate change” fills a need in their empty souls. All the trappings of religion are there: preachers, indulgences, the AAAS Bible, sacrificing to save the world by buying a Prius, converting the heathen, hatred of apostates, their own annointed prophets, their total rejection of verifiable facts that don’t support their belief system, the threat of damnation by rising seas, etc., etc.

Scientific skeptics, on the other hand, simply say: prove it, per the scientific method. Try to explain why the null hypothesis has never been falsified. No skeptical belief system is necessary; we have nothing to prove, and the planet is acting completely normally. Not one of the dire predictions of climate catastrophe have happened. Skeptics don’t have any use for witch doctors or shamans or prophets. CO2 causes runaway global warming? Prove it, with verifiable facts and observations. We’re still waiting…

WUWT readers may be interested to see what the AAAS is doing with members’ funding. I’m amused that they baldly admit that they want to “influence public perceptions and debate when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument.”

I always thought that quotation marks were meant to denote a quotation! This is NOT a quote from the press release that was mentioned above.”

Best breathe through the nose, Tim. This is a direct quote from the email Anthony received from AAAS Office of Public Programs (what press release are you talking about, none is mentioned in the article?), as can be easily deduced by actually reading the post. Hence the quote marks.

If “the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument”, then that’s a clue that the question is unresolved.

By that standard, one would be forced to conclude, for example, that a lot of questions are unresolved that I would be surprised to hear you admit are unresolved. Do you believe that the basic questions regarding the origin of species addressed by evolution are unresolved. Do you believe the question of whether the Earth is 6000 years old or more like 4.6 billion years old is unresolved?

How strange. I’m certain that sounded like you just accused Willis Eschenbach of (possibly?) being a non-scientific Young Earth Creationist.

I realize that DeSmoggyBloggy might soon be hiring one or more replacement writers of their particular “nuanced innuendo,” their “technically these are not legally unfounded unsubstantiated smears,” but is this really the best way to showcase your talent in the hope they’ll give you a call?

the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Vancouver, British Columbia was just on BCTV news which has quite a warming bias. The usual, more storms, more drought, drastic sea level rise, oceans eating fish and coral from acidification yada yada. They are going all out. The other local media, Global TV and Sun newspaper which prides itself on in depth reporting are all drinking from the same tap. In depth reporting my butt, not one question about the facts.

How about some out there taking a few moments and send these bastions of journalism some information.

Sometimes the science carries the arguement, but the extravagance requiring dumptrucks full of money and slaves are not being filled these days nd the Rothschild’s bank manipulations will be declared obsolete and a ‘ponzi scheme’ that should never have been allowed. If the carbon tax thing and ‘Global Warming’ were based on sound science, a reaction would happen worldwide complimenting and following the guidelines for bequeathing all of our money to the royal houses of Europe whose imagined ‘White Christian Superiority’ warrants making the monthly payment due the central bank.big trouble is, science does not cater to bigots. They have gone so far as to intentionally blown out a huge tap into a huge undersea high pressure oil reservoir in the Gulf of Mexico, ruining the warm water feed to the west coast of Europe by Gulfstream relay to the North Atlantic Current. They have nuked the largest array of nuclear reactors on line and set off underwater nukes to do it. .(Note at Fukushima, there is ZERO building damage before the wave hits. Going from a 9.2 to a 5.6 in less than ten miles is impossible. The real epeicenter was inland a mile or two and registered a 6.2. The reactors show enough evidence to convince sane people that they were mini-nuked. Israel would not dare do this without ‘Grand Patron’ approval. They also have been messing up the weather with Nebraska and Alaska HAARP facilities and gaming the weather derivative markets, then carpetbagging distressed farmland in the Mississippi River system. Be glad I’m not king, England. I noted Anders Brevik all dolled up in freemason regalia before collecting a $100,000 payment to support his activity. With legal requirements to register such large transfers of money, it should be a breeze to find out who paid. You never told us who paid him there AP and CFRtv. Be glad i am not king. My guess is the devil will cut you a deal out of professionaal courtesy.

Joel, you’ve been victimized by a very clever straw man. I’ve been a lurker on this and a few other climate blogs for some time and I haven’t seen the slightest evidence of that kind of fundementalists Christian belief system being expressed here or anywhere else. I’ve found that many warmest use this as a counter in the argument. It’s completely outrageous!

“‘influence public perceptions and debate when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument.’
What is being said here with “Science Is Not Enough” is:
‘If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.’
The full text of the email I received is below. Sad, simply sad.”

Sad? Isn’t this what WUWT does everyday? Obviously, WUWT must think that the science is on their side…yet they ALSO think it is important to ‘communicate’ that science to as many people as possible. So WUWT must also think that the science isn’t enough.

These people really need a proper uniform, starting with jackboots as footwear, truncheons in hand, and thermal goggles to differentiate “True Believers” in “The Cause” from climate realists.

Because once they get past “the truth” and dispose of it, that’s all they have left.

Rocky, do you mind? You managed to conjure in my mind an image of them wearing nothing but jackboots and goggles holding their “truncheons” and awaiting the arrival of the remainder of their uniforms. Not a pretty sight…

If “the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument”, then that’s a clue that the question is unresolved.

By that standard, one would be forced to conclude, for example, that a lot of questions are unresolved that I would be surprised to hear you admit are unresolved. Do you believe that the basic questions regarding the origin of species addressed by evolution are unresolved. Do you believe the question of whether the Earth is 6000 years old or more like 4.6 billion years old is unresolved?

How strange. I’m certain that sounded like you just accused Willis Eschenbach of (possibly?) being a non-scientific Young Earth Creationist.

That’s how The Git took it, too. Since he has been known to take hold of the wrong end of the stick, he refrained from commenting. Perhaps Joel needs to apologise for his baseless remark, or explain precisely what he meant.

The Pompous Git says:
February 17, 2012 at 9:45 pm
RockyRoad said @ February 17, 2012 at 7:14 pm

…
You managed to conjure in my mind an image of them wearing nothing but jackboots and goggles holding their “truncheons” and awaiting the arrival of the remainder of their uniforms. Not a pretty sight…

I am at the AAAS convention, and went to two symposia today on climate change. In the first “Chemistry in the clouds: Impacts of aerosols on climate change”, one of the presenters only showed temperature data to 2005 – I wonder why he did not show data to 2011? In the second, “beyond climate models: rethinking how to envision the future with climate change”, there were several talks on how to better communicate the issue to the public, such as pictures showing your neighborhood underwater would be better communicated by also showing what it would look like with a flood-berm around it. I wanted to say that the problem was that the public does not believe the science, but I did not have the heart.

John says: I wanted to say that the problem was that the public does not believe the science, but I did not have the heart.

I think you mean “guts” or “balls”, because I find it hard to believe you feel sorry for them (“heart”) when they are screwing up so much stuff. Still, I sympathize, it’s tough for a lamb to bleat in a lion’s den.

It is my theory that there is so much BS about global warming because we have passed the point of “PEAK SCIENCE”.
If you check the 20th century table in Wiki, approximately 30 major scientific advances were made up to 1951 and only 14 since then, so, much as we have used a lot of the easiest access coal and oil we have also used the easy access science. We have passed peak science. The problem now is that the caliber of scientist has dropped at the same time as the difficulty of science has risen, hence we are left with the junk scientists like Hansen and Mann scratching around in a wilderness that they do not understand, inventing global warming as a sop their lack of scientific results.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_scientific_discoveries#20th_century

The Pompous Git says:
February 17, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Acorn1 – San Diego said @ February 17, 2012 at 1:51 pm

You can be sure they will not talk about these:
1…CO2 at 390ppm is better than 310 seventy years ago.
Because crops grow some 40-50 percent faster.

In your dreams pal! A 15% increase in yield maybe, but making stuff up doesn’t cut it around here.

You _are_ talking different units – growth rate vs yield…..

However, using your units, think of the effect on the world population a 15% drop in food crops would have in a world where many are already hungry with a child dying of malnutrition every 5 minutes. Hansen is always claiming concern about children he should be called on this one..

OK, there’s some scientific and curious happens when Infra red light shines through carbon dioxide gas, but that seems to be the only science there is. There is the endless misuse of the greenhouse word and how carbon dioxide ‘traps’ heat. It doesn’t trap heat, nothing can trap heat. It escapes no matter what you do – entropy always increases.
Note how we see endless muppets with gas bottles and heat lamps popping up on U-tube demonstrating how they completely FAIL to understand science. Exactly as The Gorical did in his 24 hours of guilt ridden tedium just recently.
But then, even swallowing that BS, this trapped heat goes on to warm the planet. (If it really was trapped, its not gonna warm anything is it – it’s trapped – remember? Yet another level of Fail)
So what – the place gets warmer. Why EXACTLY is that so bad?
Because it changes The Climate of course. Everyone is now supposed to nod their heads knowledgeably with pictures of doom swimming around inside their heads. Just exactly WHY? Please.
Can any of them explain what this ‘climate’ thing is? Its obvious they haven’t explained it (more fail) and even The Gorical will point to a 50 degree heatwave in Iran last year as climate change but a minus 50 degree coldwave in Alaska is NOT climate change. No explanation from them there = yet more Fail.
Then people might remember how, in the mid-70s, we were all gonna freeze. 10 years later, Hansen and Wirth are telling politicians we’re all going to fry – having felt a desperate urge to sabotage the air con in the meeting rooms the night before.. They knew, even in their heart of hearts then, that they were on a hiding to nothing otherwise why pull such a stunt? Yet more fail. They’ll then try to claim that climate happens over a 30 year timespan. OK then – why?
Why is it always, heads they win, tails you lose in this climate game?

“Why do so many political leaders and citizens remain unconcerned about climate change, water scarcity, fisheries depletion, and a host of other science-related global challenges? ”

What the heck is a “science-related global challenge” as opposed to some other kind of global challenge? Or do I detect an attempt by these advocates to clothe their pet theories in a cloak of scientific impregnability?

“Why do so many political leaders and citizens remain unconcerned about climate change, water scarcity, fisheries depletion, and a host of other science-related global challenges?”

If it were only real scientists using proper science providing information to the political leaders and citizens we might be seeing different results, but with eco-extremists pushing their agendas under the guise of “science”, it is indeed unfortunate that any political leader or citizen believes the easily falsified drivel.

In the discussion of “global warming”, proper science tells us we should prepare ourselves for the change in climate and take advantage of the positive aspects of it. But, of course, none of us are paid millions of dollars to present this statement to the “policymakers”.

How strange. I’m certain that sounded like you just accused Willis Eschenbach of (possibly?) being a non-scientific Young Earth Creationist.

That’s how The Git took it, too. Since he has been known to take hold of the wrong end of the stick, he refrained from commenting. Perhaps Joel needs to apologise for his baseless remark, or explain precisely what he meant.

I thought I made my point quite clearly, but let’s try again: Willis stated a clear hypothesis which is that if the science is not enough to convince people (the public, policymakers) then this is evidence that the science is lacking. I disproved his hypothesis by showing other examples where science has not been enough to convince people but I hope and assume that we can all agree that the science is not lacking.

I then proposed a counter-hypothesis that better fits the available data: That science is not enough to convince people when that science goes against what they strongly want to believe for religious, ideological, or financial reasons.

It puzzles me why this is such a difficult argument for some to comprehend.

With words like entities and species and a laundry list of disasters it sounds like a science fiction movie but is more of a pep rally with the intent of telling others how to sell global warming without the science which is what they have been doing all along.

Now the plan is to know how to come down off their superior intellect and explain it to the masses. That would be people who work for a living in something productive, wanted and beneficial.

…I then proposed a counter-hypothesis that better fits the available data: That science is not enough to convince people when that science goes against what they strongly want to believe for religious, ideological, or financial reasons.

And yet a warm, CO2-viable Earth is so much better (for religions, idological, financial or whatever reasons) than a cold, dusty, famine-inducing Earth that you’ve proven yourself wrong by clinging to a completely incorrect assumption, Mr. Shore.

“Obviously, WUWT must think that the science is on their side…yet they ALSO think it is important to ‘communicate’ that science to as many people as possible. So WUWT must also think that the science isn’t enough.”

Is it that hard for someone like you to understand? WUWT allows anyone to post their view of science. What commenters write is not WUWT policy, it is the opinion of the commenter.

The science is enough. The problem is with the anti-science opinion of those pushing the CAGW fantasy. We have to constantly rein them back to reality, and point out that what they believe is baseless pseudo-science.

We also have to counter the rampand dishonesty regarding climate science, as promoted by Stephen Schneider, who wrote “…we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” There is no ‘double ethical bibd’. There is honesty, and there is deception. The AAAS has opted for the latter, as they brazenly make clear. If not for sites like WUWT, society would be on its way back to the days of witch doctors and shamans.

. . .

And while Joel Shore pontificates about hypotheses, I note that he has never attempted to falsify my hypothesis:

At current and projected levels, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

No one has tried to falsify that hypothesis [and I’ve tried myself], because it is based on observed facts. In fact, it should now be promoted to the status of a Theory because it makes repeated, testable and accurate predictions based on non-trivial data points. No global harm caused by the rise in CO2 has been identified per the scientific method, and satellite measurements have shown conclusively that the increase in CO2 is greening the planet. And of course, there is zero evidence that a warmer planet is bad for the biosphere. Just the opposite is true.

Therefore, the CO2=CAGW conjecture is not only wrong, it is completely opposed to reality. It does not stand up to the scientific method or the null hypothesis. It is entirely anti-science. Why Joel Shore still believes in it is a mystery. I suspect it is a combination of the “ideology” he is always going on about, and religious conviction. Because it certainly isn’t based on science.

Europe is freezing its ass off because of the ‘wizardness’ of queen lizard’s wizards.Instead of maintaining an unpretensious lifestyle, the British royals have procured three of the most incorrect people on the lecture circuit to restore Britannia to its formal glory. As a result, efforts of destruction have led to economic chaos and much death and ruination, which are the only things the Rothschilds and British royals really ever set out to do before collecting the spoils. Word has it that the underground shelters built to house their cruddy behinds are being destroyed. Maybe this stops the attacks against the U.S. and through sloppiness and stupidity, the world.

Anthony,
I don’t know if you have seen this but it is part of the highly organized effort to brainwash the public. Unfortunately this is organized by the National Academies which is highly subsidized by our tax dollars. The goal is to teach scientists how to convince the public that there are major problem although they lack the data. “new “science of science communication”
Just take a look at the folks highlighted for the Panel discussion, all from left wing administrations: “A roundtable featuring current and former White House Science Advisors John Holdren, Jack Gibbons, and Neal Lane.” They are all from Obama or Clinton administrations. So much for fair and balanced!!!

“Anyone who has followed the public dialogue on such topics as evolution, stem cell research, or climate change knows how daunting effective science communication can be. Discussions over science are often freighted with cultural, political, and moral perspectives, making the task of communicating scientific ideas even more challenging. However, a constellation of social science disciplines—from decision science to mass communication, from psychology to sociology—is converging on a new “science of science communication.” Research stretches across disciplinary boundaries, university departments, funding agencies, and scholarly journals, is debated in the media and on blogs, and has been the focus of several best-selling books.
The National Academy of Sciences is hosting an intensive two-day colloquium to survey state-of-the-art research on communication and to consider its implications for governance, policy, and public engagement. ”
Highlights include:

“Presentations by leading scientists summarizing the state of knowledge in their fields.
A keynote address by Nobel prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman, author of the top-selling Thinking, Fast and Slow.
A roundtable featuring current and former White House Science Advisors John Holdren, Jack Gibbons, and Neal Lane.
Discussions led by Arizona State University president Michael Crow, New York Times journalist David Pogue, and PBS NOVA executive producer Paula Apsell.
The colloquium will provide a unique opportunity for all scientists to improve their understanding of the public and address its information needs, for scientists in contributing disciplines to meet and learn from colleagues in other disciplines, and for communication practitioners to enhance their knowledge of the state of the science. ”

A registration fee of $150 covers the cost of meals during the conference.
Please help to promote the colloquium by sharing this message with your colleagues, or clicking here to forward this email to a friend. You can join the conversation about the Sackler Colloquium on Twitter by using the hash tag #sackler.

Posted at Bishop Hill by sHx – thought it worth adding to the AAAS thread here:

AAAS: The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is holding a live webcast from its 2012 Annual General Meeting, which will arm scientists, educators, students and citizens around the world with messages to help influence public perceptions and debate when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument.

Comment on above by sHx: The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is holding a live webcast from its 2012 Annual General Meeting, which will arm scientists, educators, students and citizens around the world with messages to help influence public perceptions and debate when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument.

When I read the bold bits on a WUWT post, I just couldn’t believe it. Sure, this had to be a denialist lie or a fake quote invented to make AAAS look bad.

Alas, the reality is stranger than fiction. AAAS did really say that.

Wonder who is the real man behind the curtain – the Wizard of AAAS? ;-)

People are unconcerned about depleted fisheries and a host of other possible ills because they have been fed an endless diet of rediculous and unfounded climate panic for a quarter of a century. Why would anyone worry about water scarcity when they are swept away by the rising tide of sea level rise alarmism?

If you want people to focus on real environmental issues, quit pumping tens and even hundreds of billions of dollars out of the productive economy for BS pseudo science and personal profit. You know… the kind of stuff your noted panel member James Hansen has been doing for over 20 years now.

Speaking of his great awareness raising, in that now famous congressional testimony didn’t he tell us Manhatten would be underwater by now? Why is the AAAS holding up rediculous and long disproven panic mongering as “science”. Perhaps a name change is in order AAAPS.

Sorry, I got cranky there. But I have been asking for 25 years for anyone to propose a mechanism by which any realistic amount of warming would not be beneficial. I have asked publicly, privately and at conferences.. Not only has no one done so, no one has even given it a try. In short warming is good, everyone knows it, even the alarmists.

May I suggest an accurate, and completely alternate view that the science IS enough?

The science (much of it presented in easy-to-understand terms here on WUWT) is indeed enough to convince people 1) that CAGW is a bogus argument; 2) that CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere (of which we are an integral part); and 3) that shilling a cause primarily for more taxpayer-paid grant money in these tough economic times really turns people off.

These bozos at the AAAS are so inculcated with their own message they fail to realize that people are sick and tired of being lied to, yet the AAAS’s continue to push, push, push! And they will fail miserably because people actually DO see the “science”–it just isn’t the “science” these AAAS’s want us to see.